It is not that ridiculous. We believe that Christ is fully divine and fully human and thus we are not guilty of monophysitism. Furthermore, there is ecumenism between the Antiochian and Greek churches in my town with my church. We are allowed to receive communion at the EO churches in Spokane and vise versa.

My firend Mathew.It is true the Rusian diaspora church has no comunion with the most other churches.

Actually The Vatican has more comunion with orthodox churches than the Russian Diasppora church, but that does not mean that Vatican are more orthodox than Russians.

What exactly do you mean by this? I, as a Romanian Orthodox layman, can commune in a ROCOR church and they can come and commune in mine. Our heirarchy may not be in full communion (and this is the case with many other Orthodox churches) but that is a far cry from the situation with the Vatican. A Roman Catholic cannot receive the Eucharist at a Romanian (or any other) Orthodox church and I can't receive the Eucharist at a Roman Catholic church - and nor would I want to. The actual status of ROCOR may be disputed, but they are as Orthodox as my own church, or the Serbian church (who they are in full communion with), etc. Roman Catholics are not in communion with any Orthodox church.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Such might be the case with St.John of San Francisco. Also I think this may apply to current day Romania. St.Glicherie of the Romanian Old Calendarists and Elder, hopefully soon-to-be-Glorified, Cleopa of the New Calendarists on the other side. As I always try to tell people within Orthodoxy things are not so cut and dry.

Excellent points, and this is more or less my taken on these things as well. All of these modern divisions are, imho, temporary, and parallel the historical examples you cited.

Quote

Bishop Artemije of the Serbian Patriarchate was only rumoured to have met with Metropolitan Cyprian of the G.S.R. and is now barred from entering Constantinople on the orders of Patriarch Bartholomew II.

This is unfortunate, but at the same time understandable. I only wish these two issues (which are related, obviously - the calendar, and ecumenism) could be addressed sometime soon in a "pan-Orthodox" context. I think this would remove a lot of unnecessary confusion.

Quote

I think you mean heretical since all Orthodox jurisdictions still view Chalcedon as Ecumenical. That is not to say I think that the Oriental churches will never return to Orthodoxy but for now they are still considered heretical. Pope John Paul II was a beacon of sanctity to some people but I do not think he was an Orthodox Saint.

I've often struggled with this issue, but in recent times have more or less come to peace with it. Not the peace of complacency (as if to say I am happy that someone lives and dies in schism, in particular heresy), a false peace, but the peace in putting more trust in the idea that "God is good", and that there will not be found any injustice in how things ultimatly work out.

God is God, and obviously He gives and takes His grace away. However, the mindset which I've perceived in the Church in Her genuine teachers and luminaries, is that we do not tresspass in taking the "canonical boundaries" of the Church at face value, and thus basically regard the activities of heterodox groups in that light. Thus their sacraments are not "authentic", and so we are not being presumptuous if we work under the assumption that they are not "real" (grace giving). Actually, if anything, it's insisting on the contrary which is to be faulted, since it implies a knowledge (and capacity for perception) which the vast majority of us do not in fact have.

In the same sense I think we look at "good folks" outside of the Church. They're in God's hands, and of course He knows best in their regard. But when all is said and done, you're right, they're not Orthodox, and we don't venerate them as Saints, since even if through God's mercy they've found some way into life everlasting, it was in spite of some key problems in their lives which of themselves disqualify them as being held up as examples to be followed (in particular, the condition of not being joined to the Church in faith and worship.)

The Antiochian Church is in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox Churches and considers us neither schismatic nor heretical.

Mmmm...it's not as simple as this. Nor is it as uncontroversial a matter as you're making it seem.

From what I understand, the Patriarchate of Antioch is quite favorable to the "Non-Chalcedonians", and has made some agreements with them relating to helping out with each other's flocks. It's not quite reached "full communion" (concelebrations), but I agree they've come pretty darn close to this.

For various reasons, there is going to be an obvious hesitancy on the part of other local Orthodox Churches to simply strike the venerable Patriarch of Antioch from their diptychs (lists of heirarchs one is in communion with, in particular presidents of local synods of bishops). Part of this is the political environment we're in (which is increasingly relativistic and individualistic, which makes "irenic approaches" preferred, perhaps even well beyond they can be rationally justified), part of it is that in some key circles in other local Churches, the views espoused by those in power in the Antiochian Church are held in favour (regarding the "Non-Chalcedonians".)

However, I suspect if these activities did reach the level of "full communion" the other local Churches would be forced (however grudgingly) by those circumstances to break communion with the Patriarch of Antioch and those with him. I think it's precisely because of this, that things have not progressed perhaps the way more "enthusiastic" ecumenists in the Antiochian fold would like. Certainly the fervor has slowed down in this regard.

As for what has been done so far, while it reflects a common reality in many parts of the Middle East (people communing in Churche's they're not in fact members of - whether it be Orthodox Christians, "Non-Chalcedonians", or Uniates), this does not change the principle that such activities are wrong and in a sense show contempt for the dogmatic issues which separate all of these groups - as if they were all somehow much about nothing, which is very much the "ecumenistic" attitude.

The case of the "Non-Chalcedonians" is different than the Uniates though, in so far as there is at least the possibility of arguing (whether that argument is persuasive is another matter) that the "Non-Chalcedonians" are in fact somehow "materially Orthodox", just using a different set of vocabulary. OTOH, this can't be said of the Uniates, who officially are at least in league with heterodoxy, if not enthusiastic endorsers of it (ex. running around espousing their love for papal aggrandizement, filioquism, creatureliness of grace, etc.)

Personally, I just wish the "Non-Chalcedonians" would accept Chalcedon, if it is in fact the case that they materially agree with it's theology. However, if they refuse to do such precisely because deep down they do not, then all of what the Antiochians are doing is a waste, and is doing incredible harm to both them and the "Non-Chalcedonians" themselves.

On the surface however, the "Non-Chalcedonians", are heretics, in the sense that the formulas they cling to (and this is the key part) while rejecting Chalcedon result not simply in a teaching which is "fuzzier" than Orthodoxy, but is actually false. This is not to say that I think most "Non-Chalcedonians" today are running around believing that Christ our God is somehow a confused mix between God and Man, not fully each, without any diminishing of either or mixture. Rather, I think most of them mean well, but are stubbornly clinging to a way of speaking (and a history of rejection) which if examined logically and critically cannot help but lead to all sorts of other bad (and perhaps more obviously) heretical conclusions (ex. monothelitism).

Quote

Either way, I'd perhaps prefer to be Russian Orthodox, given that it seems to be the most traditional of the Orthodox Churches.

Well if you want to be "traditional", that means dogma as well, not simply smells and bells. As others have pointed out to you, if you joined any Church from the Russian tradition (OCA, MP, and most especially ROCOR), you'd at least be received by economia, with the Church's understanding that She is overlooking the anti-canonical nature of the initiation you'd received from the heterodox, and supplying the grace lacking in them (namely, the grace of Holy Baptism and Chrismation). That could mean being at least expected to repent and confess the Orthodox faith, or more likely, this plus be Chrismated. If you were go to ROCOR, you might even simply be Baptized, as they're generally in the habit of not practicing "economy" in this matter (though it's not unheard of - particularly for someone coming from a "Non-Chalcedonian" background.)

Quote

I do not mind accepting Chalcedon but I definitely would not allow myself to be "re-baptized".

Well, the Church is kind, and will tolerate a lot in many circumstances, with the hope that those who are received into the Church will come to develop a thoroughly Orthodox mind about these things. Hence, part of the reason why "economy" in these matters has been a policy in many times and places wherever possible. However you should know, that as far as the Church is concerned, even if you were received without being "re"-baptized, She would be supply the "grace of Baptism" at the time of your Chrismation, or if you were to be received by the "third rite", at the time of your confession and Communion.

Quote

The Greek Orthodox and Antiochian churches in my town have intercommunion with my church.

And if this is true it is a scandal. While I highly doubt the clergy of these Church's in your town concelebrate (between the canonical Orthodox and "Non-Chalcedonians" I mean), I wouldn't doubt that they turn a blind eye (or otherwise permit) those not of their Churches to receive communion. Sadly in some parts (particularly in the west) this happens, and ultimatly the Orthodox Priests involved in this will be answerable. However what this or that Priest is doing, has no bearing on what the dogmas of the Church instruct and require.

Quote

Only hardlining anti-OE congregations find our Church to be heretical.

And what does this mean? How is one hardline "anti-OE"? Is this the state of simply not liking Copts or Ethiopians "just because"? Hardly. I think it's very unfair. The reality is, Chalcedon is an Ecumenical Council of the Church, and those who reject it are heretics, whether they be malicious or not. Period. Saying this has nothing to do with a lack of affection for "Non-Chalcedonians" or their clergy.

Quote

It is not that ridiculous. We believe that Christ is fully divine and fully human and thus we are not guilty of monophysitism.

Well, if words mean anything, you are - in fact you'll often jazz it up by calling it "miaphysitism" which I'm sorry to say means the exact same thing "mia" "mono", we're still talking about "one", as in "one nature."

Often this teaching is dressed up in Cyrillian (St.Cyril) authority, but this is mistaken. A careful examination of St.Cyril reveals that while he did chamption (against Nestorios) the unity of God and Man in Christ Jesus, he...

a) lived and reposed prior to the Council of Chalcedon (hence by default, did not reject what it had to say on the matter)

b) made it quite clear in his own teaching that he was not materially opposed to the doctrine of Chalcedon, in fact practically stating as much, such as in his writings to his opponents.

OTOH, it's another matter entirely to speak of things like "one Incarnate nature of Christ" while at the same time rejecting the important qualifications of Chalcedon. By doing so, what one ends up with at least implicitly is a falsehood. Certainly this is what unavoidably/logically flows from such a rejection. Yet for various reasons (I suspect a lot of it being political - by then historical animosity between Alexandria and Constantinople, and the Egyptian people and their Roman rulers), this persistance continued.

I must re-iterate, I'm not saying you're walking around with some crazy idea of the Incarnation. However, there is a serious problem in rejecting the doctrine taught at Chalcedon - it puts you outside of the visible unity of the Church.

Quote

Furthermore, there is ecumenism between the Antiochian and Greek churches in my town with my church. We are allowed to receive communion at the EO churches in Spokane and vise versa.

And if this is true, the Orthodox Priests involved are publically sinning. Lord have mercy.

The reality is, Chalcedon is an Ecumenical Council of the Church, and those who reject it are heretics, whether they be malicious or not.

I might as well consider you a heretic. After all, Ephesus came before Chalcedon and the Ephesian christology is the one held to by the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Do you have any evidence that the current christology of the OE churches is not the same as the original Christian communities of Ethiopia, India and Egypt?

Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites! Oriental Orthodox Christians stand firm that Christ is fully divine and fully human and thus it is only political, historical and semantical differences that have divided us. There should be peace between fellow Orthodox Christians, not unnecessary divisions. To refer to the Antiochian and Greek Christians who share fellowship with our church as "publically sinning" is rather offensive.

BTW: In case you did not know, I was baptized and chrismated into the Greek Orthodox Church as an infant.

Part of the problem is, on what criteria do we base the numbers? Those who are baptized? Those who pay dues? Those who attend almost weekly? Those who commune at least a few times a year? If we are just going to count the baptized, then we'll get meaningless numbers like some jurisdictions give out. Yeah, it looks good when you can tell the newspaper that you have a million or two million members, but what does that say when 75% or more of those people go to Church twice a year, or perhaps never? And one must ask how proper it is to include such people in the number of Orthodox (unless, of course, they have a legit reason that they can't get to Church, like being 400 miles away from the nearest parish or something).

For ROCOR, it's even harder to know since they stopped giving statistics. Based on seemingly realistic numbers I've found on the interent, there might be around 100,000 people in ROCOR. That comes out to about 295 people per parish, which seems at least possible to me (if you crunch the numbers, other jurisdictions claim to have thousands of people per parish, which seems totally unrealistic to me because, when I go to their Churches, there is rarely over 100 on Sunday mornings, and many times more like 40 or 50; and I know they don't have a few 50,000 mega churches somewhere. So either the numbers are inaccurately inflated, or there is a HUGE problem with Orthodox people not going to Church in America. I would prefer to believe that there are only a million and a half or two million Orthodox in America, than to believe that there are six million Orthodox, the great majority of which have fallen away from the Church.)

Any hostilities between the OCA and the ROCOR would likely come from the fact that the OCA (then the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America) allied themselves with the ROCOR after the revolution, when the MP was being repressed, but after that repression was lifted they abandoned ROCOR and went back into communion with Moscow, which was seen by many in ROCOR as a betrayal and slap in the face. It also didn't help that around the same time ROCOR was being invaded by a bunch of ultratraditionalist wackos (who mostly have since schismed off into HOCNA, ROCiE, ROAC, etc., but there's still a few around). There's also a bit of cultural divide -- ROCOR's ethnic base was great Russian post-revolutionary exiles, while the OCA ethnic base in their traditional strongholds in the rust belt were Carpatho-Rusyns and Ukrainians.

Relations since the fall of the USSR have generally improved, and are still continuing to improve, now that the primary grievance on ROCOR's part has disappeared.

Because they have different origins and purposes. The OCA is the descendant of the original Russian missions in the Americas, as well as the Greek Catholics that returned to Orthodoxy en masse in the beginning of the 20th century. The ROCOR is the post-revolutionary organization created by Russian exiles; it's based in America, but is not limited to there -- its flock is worldwide, wherever the Russian refugees fled after the revolution.

I understand that OCA and ROCOR are not united as one church, and thanks to Beayf for the answer to why, but are they in Communion with each other? I know that OCA is in Communion with the MP, and that the MP is not in communion with ROCOR. However, that A is in communion with B, and B is not in communion with C, does not necessarily mean that A cannot be in communion with C.

Therefore, if not, why not (bearing in mind that they were until the latter part of last century)?

Michael,The OCA and ROCOR are not in official communion, as in clergy and hierarchs don't concelebrate, but most (or maybe just "many") priests will communion each other's faithful, although the ROCOR priests will usually require a confession during the prior week. In a mathematical sense (as you described below), they are actually are in communion - through the Serbs and Jerusalem. These two Churches are in communion with ROCOR and thus by extension everybody else, hence the confusion.

Michael,The OCA and ROCOR are not in official communion, as in clergy and hierarchs don't concelebrate, but most (or maybe just "many") priests will communion each other's faithful, although the ROCOR priests will usually require a confession during the prior week. In a mathematical sense (as you described below), they are actually are in communion - through the Serbs and Jerusalem. These two Churches are in communion with ROCOR and thus by extension everybody else, hence the confusion.